• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

RESTRUCTURING SUSLIC HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE IN WEST VIAGINTA, 1969 - 1989 A POLICY STUDY Dissertation submjited ia the Faculty of whe Virginia Polytechiic lnstitete ang State University in partial fulfillment ct the requirements for the degree of DOCYIS OF EDUCATION in Educationgl Administration APFROVED: x ‘ t ; Ue ly Sf. tr! ‘co haf . é Ca | po H. h. Stubbl aTDoo ‘ hate i| f 2 (=< ZL, geenCALE: at 1 W. MH. Werner May, Lot? Blacksburg, Virginia LD SusS VB5le \QAZ D866 Cz RESTRUCTURING PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE IN WEST VIRGINIA, 1969 - 1989: A POLICY STUDY by Linda Smith Dunn Committee Chairmen: Karl Hereford and Ron Hekeen Educational Administration (ABSTRACT) The West Virginia Reard of Regents, age 26, statewide governing board for higher education, died June 2 1989 asa result of legislative termination. Like so many of its pregenitors, the Board, au abstraction without constituenctes or politica] preponents, was quietly written out of the State Code. There were no exylogies. In 2 retrospective search for the cause of death, the enactment, implementation, and termination of the Board were analyzed. The dynamics of the political processes through which the structure of higher education governance was medified during its two decades were decrmented. The political tegacv and challenging cultural beqves:s of the Board were profiled. A political epitaph for the Regents included the Following inscriptions. The governance structure of higher education in the aceat stat MD of West Yirginia is what the governor, the legislature, the campus presidents, and _ their creation(s), the board(s), perceive it to be. In its finest hours, structuring can be a_ political coalition, a partnership, dedicated to the public interest, striving for quality, access and excellence. In its darkest days, Structure can become a political target, an object of control, a source of rivalry and competition. Restructuring is a ritual within a highly individualistic political culture which reveres higher education as adn instrument of government. Restructuring is invoked when one or more of the partners is shunned or shunted and, as a result publicly reveals that structuring 1s a political process. Then, structure must be sacrificed to restore trust, to revive public confidence in those entrusted with governance. Restructuring produces a new governance structure and reestablishes a process of structuring. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS grate’ ful, (adj.): appreciative of benefits received; thankful. The support, encouragement, and prayers of many have made possible my dream. There is not space to cite them all, nor words to adequately recognize their contributions. The following are those without whom this document would not have been possible. Three scholarships were truly financial "manna", unexpected benevolence, humbly accepted: the Zora Ellis International Scholarship from the Delta Kappa Gamma Society International; the Founders Scholarship from Alpha Phi State; and the Ruth Bufton National Scholarship from the American Business Women's Association. The interviews personalized the life of the Board of Regents and were the true joy of the dissertation process. It was an honor and a privilege to interact with former governors, Arch Moore and Jay Rockefeller; the legislative leaders; the Regents; members of their staff; and the campus leaders. Of course, I will always be grateful to Daniel Crowder and James Butcher who afforded me the opportunities to experience higher education administration. This study was the product of the "suggestions and iv corrections of at least five other "minds". All were my teachers and mentors. Each gave uniquely: Harold, a reviewer, counselor and supporter; Wayne, a thorough editor; and Jim, the inspiration for "investigative reporting". Ron was always there for me, from the pre-admission interview. He forgave my "NT" lows and rejoiced in the scholarship highs. He will always represent the "very best of the Tech experience”. But it was Karl, who listened, reflected, and critiqued. It was Karl's enthusiasm for "the story" that often rekindled my own. I will always wonder how the story would have read if Karl, my fellow West Virginian, had become the president of West Virginia University in 1967. Without the love of my family and their personal sacrifices, there would have been no doctoral study. I am but an extension of then. It was my Mother, who through illness and injury, prayed for the completion of the "book". It was my late Father who shared his enthusiasm for the State, its history and its politics. There should be two names on the diploma and on the dissertation. Because of his love, his friendship, and his faith in me, this document and this study are: Dedicated to KEENAN R. DUNN, the WIND BENEATH MY WINGS. Table of Contents Section Page Abstract ii Acknowledgements. iv List of Figures . vil Introduction . Legislative Enactment . 21 Implementation: The Study 50 The Moore Years, 1969 - 1976. 68 The Rockefeller Years, 1977 - 1984. - 122 The Terminal Years, 1985 - 1989. - 173 The Legacy. - 224 Bibliography . 262 Vita. 275 Vi List of Figures Figure Title A State Obituary, June 30, 1989. West Virginia Public Higher Education System - 53 Changes in Public Higher Education Governance . 228 Governance Structure, Prior to 1969 236 Governance Structure, 1969 1976. 238 Governance Structure, 1977 - 1983. 241 Governance Structure, 1983 1984. - 246 Governance Structure, 1984 - 1986. 249 Governance Structure, 1986 1989. 253 10 The Wherefore of Restructuring. - 256 11 A Political Epitaph . - 257 vii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION A STATE OBITUARY June 30, 1989 WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF REGENTS, age 20, statewide governing board for higher education, died at midnight in Charleston as a result of legislative termination. Born July 1, 1969 in Charleston, the Board was conceived by the 1969 State Legislature and others. It was signed into law by Governor Arch A. Moore, Jr., who also appointed its first nine lay members. In addition to former Governors Moore and Rock- efeller, it is survived by eleven institutions which were in existence in 1969: West Virginia University, Morgantown (including its two-year affiliate, Potomac State College, Keyser); Marshall University, Hun- tington; Bluefield State College, Bluefield; Concord College, Athens; Fairmont State College, Fairmont; Glenville State College, Glenville; Shepherd College, Shepherdstown; West Liberty State College, West Liberty; West Virginia Institute of Technology, Montgomery; and West Virginia State College, Institute. Also surviving are four institutions which the Board created: Parkersburg Community College, Parkersburg; Southern West Virginia Community College, Logan and Williamson; West Virginia Northern Community College, Wheeling-Weirton-New Martinsville; and West Virginia College of Graduate Studies, Institute; and one institution which it adopted at Legislative request: the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine, Lewisburg. It was preceded in statutory demise by six institu- tional Boards of Regents, 1909; a state Board of Regents, 1919; a State Board of Control, 1947; the West Virginia University Board of Governors, 1969; and the higher education responsibilities of the West Virginia State Board of Education, 1969. Its estates, powers and duties are bequeathed to the University of West Virginia Board of Trustees and the Board of Directors of the State College System. Figure 1: A State Obituary, June 30, 1989 The Cause of Death Death was expected. It had been anticipated for at least the last five years (1). Indeed, it was planned by some, including Governor Moore (2); it had been prevented on at least two occasions by other interested parties (3). There were no eulogies. Why? The Board of Regents was not created to fail, although there were outspoken critics from its conception. According to a former president of West Virginia University, Irvin Stewart, the Board was an "administrative monstrosity" and a regression to unwarranted governmental control (4). There were a number of leading educators who would publicly claim no responsibility for the birth of this governing board for they had recommended a coordinating board with limited powers in 1966 (5). Yet the Regents endured for twenty years. Obviously, there are those who believe the Regents' failure was inherent in its structure because the solution was to replace the Board with a new dual-system of governance (6). The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching recommended such a structural realignment with coordination of the two new systems (7). Curiously, a similar arrangement had been recommended by two other studies: one in 1966 (8), the other in 1979 (9). Neither was adopted by the Legislature. Other officials pronounce the Board's failure to survive a result of political naivete, an inability to "use the power and authority that was vested in it", this according to the current chairman of the Senate Education Committee, Sondra Lucht (10). Some say the Board was the victim of the political influence that it tried to rebuff. According to a former president of the Board, William Watson, "When the Board did try to take politi- cally unpopular action, it suffered the wrath of the governor and legislators" (11). Still other observers say that board members, even when they made the right decisions, lost their attempts at change solely because "they went headlong into battle without lining up allies" (12). The battle was often about turf. "College campuses are the state equivalent of a military base to a congressman. No delegate or senator likes to see any institution (in the home district) shorted in terms of the budgetary process", observed John Hoblitzell (13). He was the pre-law student whom Governor Moore attempted unsuccessfully to appoint as one of the first Regents (14). A former senate president and now state supreme court judge, William Brotherton, summed it up this way: "Legislators are still interested in little fiefdoms. I think that's what eventually led to the demise of the Regents" (15). Then there are those who believe the cause of death was money or lack of money. Watson said money affected or influenced 3 nearly everything the Board did.

Load more

  283

Copy Link